Tag: Gun Rights

From Now On I Demand Citations

Dennis Henigan, the President of the Brady Campaign, has another article up on the Huffington Post, and as usual it’s full of fear mongering and blatant lies. It’s almost comical to read through his pieces because they make a lot of claims but never have citations to back those claims. In the scientific community making claims that aren’t backed by evidence gets you laughed at and usually ostracized by your fellows until evidence is brought forth. I think it’s time that we started treating the gun debate like a scientific inquiry where all claims must be backed by evidence. Those of us on the side of gun ownership have been doing this for years so we can kick back for a while and relax, but those crazies in the anti-gun community need to pony up.

For some fun I’m going to go through some of the article’s claims because it entertains me:

Remember two summers ago when most Americans were appalled by the sight of guns openly carried by protesters at presidential speaking events and town hall forums on the health care issue?

Remember two summers ago when the anti-gun media tried to make the entire situation look like racial tension, even going so far as to fabricate evidence? If your side was willing to make shit up in order to push their agenda then you can bet your sweet ass that I’m going to demand evidence that demonstrates “most Americans” were appalled by the sight of guns being openly carried at those events.

When it comes to carrying concealed weapons, Perry certainly walks the walk. He has a concealed carry permit and proudly says that he carries a gun when he is out jogging.

I know you’re trying to make a case against Perry (which is really fucking easy by the way, I can’t believe you’ve fucked it up) but you have to realize that pro-gun people who are politically active far outnumber anti-gun people who are politically active. Thus this statement is going to cause more harm to your movement than good as it will improve the status of Perry in the eyes of the politically active pro-gun people. Usually if something works against your movement you simply ignore it and never bring it up.

He didn’t respond by saying the question is ridiculous. He didn’t say that in the close quarters of a rope line, with a multitude of people pulling and tugging at him, a gun could easily drop to the ground or be taken from him.

That’s why police standing in front of protest lines have their guns taken from them all the time… wait never mind, that doesn’t happen. Henigan this claim is idiotic, provide some proof of this happening or shut the Hell up.

He didn’t say that an armed candidate would be a nightmare for the Secret Service.

It must be quite the nightmare being the Secret Service actually taught Obama how to shoot.

Rick Perry apparently doesn’t think the question is ridiculous. In fact, his sarcasm suggests he has no objection to political candidates carrying guns to campaign events; he seems to imply that he may do so himself. One thing is clear. The governor has been so thoroughly marinated in pro-gun ideology that he is unashamed about taking it to its logical extreme.

There you ago again, making Perry sound favorable in the eyes of the politically active pro-gun population. I guess you’ve has been swimming in cognitive dissonance so long that you believe politically active anti-gunners outnumber politically active pro-gunners.

I wonder if this thought ever occurred to Rick Perry: If a would-be presidential assailant is undeterred by Secret Service agents with Uzis, why would he be deterred by a presidential candidate packing heat?

Objection, relevance? A potential assailant isn’t going to deterred by knowing that Perry isn’t carrying a gun so this entire statement is completely meaningless.

Yes, it is a good thing that senators can’t carry guns onto the Senate floor because the presence of guns, even carried by well-meaning, law-abiding citizens, increases the risk that arguments and conflicts will escalate to lethal violence.

Let it be known that I’m declaring bullshit, either provide evidence of this happening or shut the Hell up. I’m not aware of a single case of an argument between one or more people legally carrying a firearm that escalated into a shoot out. You keep making this claim Henigan but so far have yet to provide any evidence.

It is the same reason that our national parks are less safe because (due to legislation sponsored by Senator Coburn himself) concealed carry of weapons is now permitted within their borders.

Once again evidence is needed, or as Wikipedia would say, “[citation needed].”

It is the reason that our streets, restaurants and coffee houses are less safe in states that have made concealed carry easier.

Again, you need to provide some evidence. This blog, as well as many other gun blogs, contain tons of evidence that demonstrates that violent crime has been dropping even though carry laws have continued to be liberalized (using the classical definition of the word).

It is the reason that college campuses remain far safer than the gun-saturated communities that surround them, because the gun lobby has been foiled in its efforts to force colleges and universities to allow concealed carry

You can’t compare apples to oranges. A proper statement would be, “It is the reason that college campuses that continue to ban students and faculty from legally carrying on site have a lower rate of gun-related crime than campuses that allow students and faculty to legally carry on site.” Of course that statement would also be false but at least it would be a comparison of like things.

They may well be the way things are in an American nightmare where, in political discourse, the guns speak louder than the rhetoric.

That’s why so many political debates between people carrying firearms turn into shoot outs… never mind, once again that’s not the case which makes Henigan’s statements irrelevant.

What I’m Compensating For

Uncle pointed out a post by a Dr. Helen that asks gun owners what they’re compensating for (before going bat shit crazy about her being anti-gun her comment is actually derived from reading a certain self-defense book geared towards women).

I’m compensating for the incompetency of the state to provide adequate protection even though they claim a monopoly on the service.

What Gun Registration Gets You

I’m not sure how many times I’ve been asked why I’m against gun registration. Usually people who ask me this aren’t aware of my complete disdain and absolute lack of trust in the state. Either way the question is often asked, I give my answer, and the person asking the question accuses me of being paranoid and killing puppies. The fact of the matter is trusting the government with the knowledge that you own firearms can only lead to one thing, confiscation. Miguel over at Gun Free Zone posted a story that demonstrates this very fact:

Raids yesterday morning by detectives working in Taskforce Acer 17 netted firearms police feared could be passed to criminals.

The weapons were held legally by registered gun owners, but police intelligence revealed 20 had “connections to family or associates who were persons of interest to the Acer Taskforce team”.

Officers simultaneously hit 21 properties at 8am to ensure the licence holders were complying with all conditions.

A total of 21 guns – including 15 shotguns and ammunition for an AK47 rife – were seized.

21 properties were hit simultaneously and every legally (according to the state) owned firearm was confiscated because the firearm owners had family ties to or associations with people who were being watched by the Acer Task Force. None of these people performed any criminal acts, they simply had some kind of tie to people being watch (not charged, so likely people who also did nothing illegal) by the state.

The government doesn’t want firearm registration to keep you safe, they want it to ensure they can steal your firearms whenever it damn well pleases. There is no legitimate reason to implement firearm registration and plenty of illegitimate ones. Anytime the state wants to expand their powers and knowledge you need to ask yourself why. Never trust the justification given by the state because that’s just a cheap method of getting you to go along with their plan to further expand their power. Ultimately there is always a nefarious purpose being any expansion of state power or knowledge, you just have to find it.

Only in Switzerland My Ass

Via Reddit I cam across a picture of a man carrying a rifle in the Apple Store:

At first glance I was assuming this picture was taken in Switzerland as that is a Swiss militia rifle but it took a while for anybody commenting to give the source of the picture. The post where this pictured originated from is titled “Only in Switzerland” which I feel insults various state in the United States.

This picture certainly isn’t a possibility exclusive to Switzerland, as a Minnesota resident with a carry permit I could toss my SR-25 over my back and walk into an Apple Store without fear of legal repercussions. As I’m a man who loves accuracy I would change the title to something like “Sadly, Only in a Few States” (state meaning either a country or a state in the United States).

What’s most telling about this photo is the reactions of those around the man, that is to say they’re not reacting. Nobody seems to notice or give a shit that somebody is carrying a rifle around on their back and that’s how it should be.

Anti-Gunners Proven Wrong Yet Again

This is why anti-gunners aren’t taken seriously anymore, every statement they make has been proven wrong. A year ago Virginia passed a law that allowed those carrying firearms to do so in restaurants serving alcohol. As usual the anti-gunners decried the passage of this law as some kind of harbinger of death that would unleash gunfire into every restaurant in the state. So what was the net effect after a year of this law being on the books? Not surprisingly crime in restaurants has dropped:

Virginia’s bars and restaurants did not turn into shooting galleries as some had feared during the first year of a new state law that allows patrons with permits to carry concealed guns into alcohol-serving businesses, a Richmond Times-Dispatch analysis found.

The number of major crimes involving firearms at bars and restaurants statewide declined 5.2 percent from July 1, 2010, to June 30, 2011, compared with the fiscal year before the law went into effect, according to crime data compiled by Virginia State Police at the newspaper’s request.

Any logical person would admit their error after being proven wrong as many times as anti-gunners have. Sadly anti-gunners aren’t logical people which leads them to continue claiming that the sky is falling even though all evidence has proven otherwise.

A tip of the old hat goes to Uncle for this story.

Ron Paul Introduces Legislation to Abolish Federal “Gun-Free Zones”

I have no idea how this news passed me by but Ron Paul once again demonstrates his awesomeness; this time by introducing H.R. 2613, the Citizens Protection Act of 2011. The legislation, if passed (which it never will be sadly), would abolish federal “gun-free zones” (more accurately known as victim disarmament zones) at K-12 schools. This would allow teachers and faculty to carry while performing their jobs as teachers which could greatly reduce the damage psychopaths would be able to inflict should they decide to shoot up another school.

One of the reasons schools are targets of shootings is because the shooters know that their victims will be disarmed due to federal mandate. It’s apparent that they select their targets based on the defenseless nation of their victims because they quickly commit suicide at the first sign of resistance (usually 10 to 15 minutes after they start, which is how long is usually takes the police to respond). Having teachers and faculty on campus able to provide resistance would likely make many people with malicious intent in their minds consider a different target, or if not that, would provide quick responding resistance which would likely end the event much sooner.

Sadly this bill will likely never pass but it does demonstrate that Ron Paul really intents to reduce the power government has over our lives, unlike his competition for the Republican presidential nominee.

Anti-Gunner Idiocy on Parade

Sometimes I come across an article full of so much bullshit and stupidity that I have to actually take a few minutes to re-read it and see if it actually says what I thought it said after the first reading. Uncle pointed out one of those articles dealing with the recent massacre in Norway. It’s not good to make your entire article irrelevant in the first paragraph but this one did exactly that:

DEEP IN his 1,518-page manifesto, Anders Behring Breivik, the man accused of killing 68 people at a Norwegian youth camp last month, explained how he acquired the ammunition that he used in the attack: “10 x 30 round magazines – .223 cal at 34 USD per mag. Had to buy through a smaller US supplier (who again ordered from other suppliers) as most suppliers have export limitations. . . . Total cost: 550 USD.” He says he could have purchased the clips in Sweden, but they were cheaper through the U.S. supplier.

Emphasis mine. The article goes on spewing idiocy relating to gun laws in the United States but it’s completely irrelevant because Breivik could have obtained his 30-round magazines even if they were illegal in the United States. Why write an article implying that restricting 30-round magazines in the United States would have prevented Norway’s tragedy when the killer would have simply ordered the magazines from another country? You don’t nothing more than annoy a great number of electrons in writing your argument and making it completely irrelevant right from the word go.

Mr. Breivik’s claim is sadly believable, even though Norwegian officials have not confirmed the details.

I’m quoting this because it’s important a little later on, keep it in mind.

U.S. gun retailers can sell merchandise overseas and do not need to obtain an export license if the value of the goods being shipped falls below $100; sellers can avoid the licensing requirements — and buyers can avoid the additional costs — by breaking up the order into smaller shipments. U.S. law enforcement officials should determine whether the transaction was legal.

Once again the emphasis is mind. The author of this opinion piece seems to be making an argument without actually understanding how the legal system in the United States works. Law enforcement doesn’t get to determine what is legal and what isn’t, that’s done by our lawmakers and judges. The federal government (which is the only one that matters as this transaction was international and thus fall sunder federal regulations) has three branches with the legislative branch (Congress and the Senate) making laws with the judiciary branch determining whether or not those laws are constitutional if passed. Law enforcement is only tasked with enforcing the laws the legislative branch has passed and the judiciary branch hasn’t invalidated. They don’t get the determine jack shit.

Regardless of where Mr. Breivik obtained his weapons, the events in Norway should serve as a reminder of the absurdity of producing and selling such products.

Remember when I said that one quote would be important, well here’s the reason. The author is basically saying, “I have no clue if any claims I’m making in this article are true but damn it I don’t like 30-round magazines so I don’t fucking care. I also sodomize myself with a retractable baton.” OK I may have added a bit of editorial creativity somewhere in that paraphrase but the basic idea is true. The Norwegian government hasn’t actually come forth with any information related to the weapons used by Breivik. If his manifesto is accurate then we also have to ban a bunch of currently available chemicals as he used easily available components to build is bomb. Oh, and the next line is just fucking classic anti-gunner malarkey:

No self-respecting hunter would use such exaggerated force to take down a deer.

No self-respecting hunter would use a 9mm handgun to take down a deer. The 9mm isn’t a hunting round, it’s a self-defense round. Deer are critters of some size and using a 9mm is inhumane as it’s likely to injure but not kill the deer which is an outcome self-respecting hunters don’t want. Hell the .223 rifle that was being used by Breivik isn’t even a round that most deer hunters would consider acceptable for the same reason they don’t consider the 9mm acceptable. Finally, the right to bear arms has absolutely nothing to do with hunting.

These magazines too often find their way into the hands of deranged individuals, transforming them into efficient killing machines. In Tucson earlier this year, Jared Lee Loughner relied on high-capacity magazines to tear off 31 shots in a matter of seconds, killing six people and seriously injuring 13 others, including Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.).

So you have two data points and all of the sudden these 30-round magazines are a plague unto the Earth? If we’re going to ban items based on whether or not a couple of people were able to successfully use them to harm others we need to get out there and ban automobiles, knives of all types, fertilizer, anything that can be used to start a fire, shovels, axes, etc.

There was a brief period of sanity in this country when high-capacity magazines were prohibited as part of an assault weapons ban. That ban expired in 2004; a Washington Post review of Virginia records showed that the number of high-capacity magazines used in crimes jumped dramatically in that state after the ban lapsed.

The Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) Unified Crime Report also shows that violent crime itself has been dropping. This drop includes a decreases in the number of homicides where firearms were used as the murder weapon. So using the author’s “logic” we can say raising the ban on standard capacity magazines actually caused a drop in violent crime (no I don’t actually believe that, I’m just pointing out the stupidity in the author’s argument).

Some people are dumb, the person who wrote this opinion piece is just plain stupid.

When Everything Goes to Hell

The situation in the United Kingdom (UK) went from bad to worse pretty quickly. After looking into the story more thoroughly I feel that I can make a more education post in relation to the riots. First we need to start with the catalyst, the shooing of Mark Duggan.

I incorrectly stated yesterday that Duggan was a demonstrator, like I said I hadn’t had time to look into the story and thus incorrect statements were likely. Mark Duggan wasn’t a demonstrator, he was a man the police were apparently trying to arrest. Early it was stated that Duggan shot at the police but recent evidence refutes such claims:

Mr Duggan, 29, whose death sparked the first riots in Tottenham, died from a single bullet wound, an inquest heard.

The police watchdog said ballistic tests showed “no evidence that the handgun found at the scene was fired”.

According to reports the officers that killed Duggan were part of Operation Trident. Operation Trident was established due to the fact people aren’t free to own means of self-defense in the UK. The specialty of Operation Trident is dealing with gun “crime” (quotations used because the task force deals treats ownership as a crime even though it’s not by any sane standards) in black communities. So why were the police initially attempting to arrest Duggan? Was it because he was in possession of a firearm? If so he was murdered in my opinion since ownership of an item isn’t grounds for the use of lethal force.

On the other hand if Duggan used his firearm in a threatening manner I can see why the police would consider the act one in which lethal force was an appropriate response. This scenario seems unlikely to me as the police would have mentioned it as their justification for shooting Duggan.

Either way we have a man killed by the police which lead to a demonstration and that demonstration lead to a multi-day riot in several cities in the UK. In a true statement of idiocy the people rioting over a grievance with their government have turned to destroying the private property of people who aren’t even employees of the government.

Another thing to note is the plight of the defenseless victims of the rioters. In the UK citizens have no right to self-defense and the most effective means of self-defense have been confiscated and deemed illegal. Because of this those who reside in the areas where rioting is prevalent are at the mercy of the roving mobs. Those of us living in the United States are fortunate that our government hasn’t completely stripped us of our right to keep and bear arms. When riots happen in this country the people being assault by rioters have a means of evening the odds and increasing their chances of surviving the encounter. Being the target of an angry mob is not a good situation regardless but having a firearm at least grants you the capability to defending yourself against multiple attackers.

Those living in the UK have no such ability and thus their only choices are pray that they aren’t preyed upon by the riots or become defenseless victims if they’re caught by those roaming the streets looking for violence. Hell, if the people in the UK weren’t prohibited the ownership of firearms this entire situation may not have occurred as it’s possible Duggan was being arrested merely for the possession of a gun (it’s also possible he was being arrested for something else, the police haven’t publicly released any information that I’m aware of). The last sentence is something for you anti-gunners to consider.

In the end the only thing that is certain is that things went to Hell quickly in the UK. It’s likely that we’ll never know the entirety of the story but it is likely that the UK government will use these riots as an excuse to further strip those living under it’s rule of their few remaining rights.

Oh, and those security cameras the government put up everywhere to spy on the citizenry didn’t do jack shit. I just thought I’d point that out in case anybody believed public surveillance somehow deterred crime.

But According to the Anti-Gunners This Never Happens

Get this, a man used a firearm to prevent two would be invaders from invading his home. According to the anti-gunners this kind of thing never really happens but alas it did:

Jerry Bowen didn’t run and hide when two Hickory men kicked in his door at his Warwick Court home in eastern Lincoln County, according to law enforcement. Instead the 42-year-old grabbed his gun and took charge of the situation.

Bowen fired a warning shot and ordered the men to the ground, according to Lincoln County Sheriff David Carpenter.

James David Rubenstahl and his nephew, Robert Ray Rubenstahl, did as they were told. They dropped to the ground and waited for police to arrive, said Carpenter who mentioned that Bowen searched the men and even used their cell phone to call 911.

I’m not the biggest fan of firing warning shots. North Carolina has castle doctrine which includes using any means necessary to prevent intruders from entering the home so I don’t think Mr. Bowen will have to face charges for firing the warning shot. Firing a warning shot in Minnesota could land you in hot water since we lack castle doctrine (thanks “representatives” for refusing to vote on the bill until the session ended, fuckers) so the only way you can use a firearm in self-defense is if your life is in immediate danger, even if you’re at home. Firing a warning shot can make the defense of feeling your life was in immediate danger a bit shaky which is why we need castle doctrine here (and in every other state) desperately. By firing a warning shot Mr. Bowen was able to defuse the situation without harming anybody which most people would consider a good thing.

I also want to give some style points to Mr. Bowen for using the would be invader’s cell phone to call the police. That right there is humiliation you simply can’t buy. These kinds of scenarios play out fairly often which is why the right to keep and bear arms is so important, especially when the criminals are literally kicking down your front door and the police are minutes away.

Lever Action Rifles, The Really Poor Man’s Assault Rifle

Hot on the heels of complaining about the popularity of Glock pistols, the Violence Promotion Policy Center (VPC) has released another report titled “The Ruger Mini-14, The Poor Man’s Assault Rifle. Obviously I’m not linking directly to VPC material (they get no link love from me) but No Lawyers – Only Guns and Money has a nice writeup and a link to the paper:

In the wake of revelations that the deranged killer in Norway used a Ruger Mini-14, the Violence Policy Center [Direct VPC Link Removed] has released a “report” calling the Mini-14 the “poor man’s assault rifle.” This term came from “Assault Pistols, Rifles and Submachine Guns” – an old, out-of-date book (published in 1986) – by Duncan Long

The MRSP for the base model of the Ruger Mini-14 is $881. The price for the model they feature in the “report” is $921. Street prices for these rifles are still in the upper $600 range. Those are U.S. prices. I imagine it is much higher priced in Europe.
The Violence Policy Center then goes into exhaustive detail from the deranged killer’s 1500 page manifesto about why he went with the Ruger Mini-14. They, of course, call it a “militarized weapon” which can defeat body armor and are easily available in the United States. Mind you, the deranged killer was Norwegian and bought his rifle under the extremely strict Norwegian gun control laws.

You know what else can defeat body armor and is easily available in the United States? Lever action rifles, which must make them the really poor man’s assault rifle. Likewise I can get a pretty nice entry level AR-15 for the price of a Mini-14 so if I’m going to go for the poor man’s assault rifle I might as well go all out and buy something that’s scarier looking (according to anti-gunners).

I also find it interesting that the Norwegian psychopath was able to get a select fire rifle when I can’t even get those here with our “loose” gun laws. Well he either obtained a select fire weapon or VPC is lying by saying the Mini-14 is an assault rifle because assault rifles by definition have the ability to go full auto. I’m just saying an organization willing to lie about what kind of weapon a specific rifle is likely lying about other things as well.